LA Times editorial says HR 1528 would tear apart families, harm children

[Nothing Without Hope]

The editorial is strongly worded and points out many basic problems with this bill, cynically called by the Republicans “The Safe Access To Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act Of 2005.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sentence5may05.story
May 5, 2005
LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL

Attacking Judges, Not Drugs

(snip)

Many criminal justice experts believe that longer prison terms and tougher parole rules helped push down the crime rate over the last decade, in part by keeping repeat offenders locked up. So a bill by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) upping already harsh sentences for low-level drug offenders can only be a good thing, right? Wrong.

(snip)

The measure is just as likely to pull families apart. Parents who see but don't report drug use in the home — even if their child wasn't present — would get a mandatory term. So if Dad watches Mom smoke marijuana in their living room, they both head to prison, and Junior goes to foster care. Drug treatment would surely seem the smarter solution for such a family.

To oppose this bill is hardly to condone drug use. It is to acknowledge that drug laws have already reached the point of diminishing returns. Drug offenders already are serving longer sentences than felons convicted on federal manslaughter or assault charges. Taxpayers are on the hook for prison costs that are spiraling out of control, and judges of all political stripes have slammed mandatory drug sentences as overkill.

Sensenbrenner and his Republican allies know all this. But furious over recent Supreme Court decisions returning to judges small shreds of discretion in applying these draconian laws, they are bent on reversing those gains. Instead of cutting drug use, the real goal of this bill is to score political points in a larger war against the judiciary.

[Why Syzygy]

1. sux

the name of "power", she is evil.

WHAT are they thinking ??????

[cap]

2. spouses cant be forced to testify against each other

[LittleClarkie]

3. Once again, I'd like to apologize for my Representative

I will be campaigning for his replacement in about a year or so. Go Bryan Kennedy!

Sadly, it's a Repub district, and these fools seem to be elected for life.

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. I checked on him and he does appear to be one of DeLay's pets:

http://houseofscandal.org/members/JamesSensenbrennerWI-5.html
Just how tangled up in Tom DeLay's House of Scandal is James Sensenbrenner?

James Sensenbrenner voted with Tom DeLay 89% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005. Is this the kind of lockstep government that working families deserve?

James Sensenbrenner voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay. Does the integrity of the House mean so little that James Sensenbrenner would sacrifice it to defend Tom DeLay?

When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, James Sensenbrenner voted to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote. So instead of a bipartisan effort to get government working for Americans, James Sensenbrenner stood for cronyism and partisan politics.

Voting percentage with DeLay: 89%
(calculated through: www.cq.com)

Vote to weaken ethics rules: YES
H Res. 5, Roll Call #6, 1/4/05

Vote to table Democratic solution: YES
H. Res. 153, Roll Call #70, 3/15/05

[LittleClarkie]

5. Look at the rest of our cheerful bunch

Green, Ryan and Petri all took money from DeLay's PAC as well. Sensennbrenner didn't do that at least. But then he doesn't have to. Folks vote for him out of habit around here.

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. kick n/t